120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Where is the "context" or the "age of superstition" which is supposed to explain the appearance of the Jesus miracle stories?

No such "age of superstition" exists. It's just another Jesus-debunker fabrication.

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997). Richard Carrier

continued from

The Jesus miracle stories are inconsistent with the "context" of the first century --

and from

Did the "Age of Superstition" cause the Jesus miracle stories?

In all of Carrier's examples, there is nothing to show that there was an "age of superstition" preceding the rise of the Jesus miracle stories. His following examples all happen AFTER the Jesus miracle stories appeared. To make any sense, the alleged "age of superstition" has to come FIRST, before the stories inspired by it. Why can't Carrier cite anything happening PRIOR to these new miracle stories appearing in the Gospel accounts and emerging somewhere between 30-70 AD? Something causing these to appear, such as an "age of superstition" of that time, has to date back to the early 1st century AD or earlier, back to 50 or 100 BC, e.g., but not somewhere around 80 or 90 AD.

The Minor Evidence: Messiahs and Miracles Galore

Even in Acts, we get an idea of just how gullible people could be. Surviving a snake bite was evidently enough for the inhabitants of Malta to believe that Paul himself was a god (28:6).

This story comes long after the Jesus miracle stories first appeared.

And Paul and his comrade Barnabas had to go to some lengths to convince the Lycaonians of Lystra that they were not deities. For the locals immediately sought to sacrifice to them as manifestations of Hermes and Zeus, simply because a man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18).

At the earliest, this story appears near 50 AD, but likely much later, when Acts was written. Obviously it appears much later than the Jesus miracle stories originated. All the miracle stories in Acts are clearly an outgrowth from the earlier Jesus events in the gospels. So clearly, this story in Acts cannot be taken as being part of an "age of superstition" which inspired the Jesus stories to be created.

Nor is there any other literature Carrier can cite to indicate this "age of superstition" or "context" for the Jesus miracle stories. Is there any other example from documents of the time, such as between 300 BC and 100 AD, to show how people believed there were man-gods appearing, doing miracles? How about from the Roman writer Virgil, whose Aeneas wandered around the Mediterranean, along the N. African coast and Italian coast. Are there any miracle stories there, about Aeneas doing a miracle, or someone thinking he did, and believing he was a god? Obviously there's nothing, because Carrier would offer it to prove his point, if any such accounts existed.

Outside the gospels and Acts, there is no literature of this period, before 100 AD, showing anything like what Carrier is describing. No indication of recent miracles or new reports of such events, no hero being made into a god, other than the ancient pagan god-heroes, and worshipers of those gods praying at their temples, or priests performing sacrifices to those ancient gods.

These stories show how ready people were to believe that gods can take on human form and walk among them, . . .

"These stories" -- yes, but why ONLY these? These are the ONLY such stories from the period that exist. What other accounts are there showing that people believed such things?

Obviously if a healing event should really happen, then of course people would accept divine or supernatural explanations. That's always been true, and still is today. But we don't see any other stories like these, where someone is mistaken for a god. Or where people believed a miracle was performed, other than worshipers praying at statues or temples and believing the pagan deity cured them. No case of any human being mistaken for a god because something was taken to be a miracle. Why can't Carrier find an example of this without having to rely on the New Testament writings for it?

The Paul story is a product of someone writing in 80-90 AD, which is long after the Jesus miracle stories appeared, so has nothing to do with an "age of superstition" which caused the Jesus miracle stories to appear somewhere from 30-70 AD. And even if the story somehow originates from near 50 AD, this really is too late to indicate an "age of superstition" which created the Jesus miracle stories. Doesn't this "age of superstition" have to date from much farther back, like 50 or 100 BC? We can't come up with one example of superstitious miracle beliefs appearing in that earlier time?

. . . and that a simple show was sufficient to convince them that mere men were such divine beings. And this evidence is in the bible itself.

So then it was so easy for people to believe that "mere men were such divine beings"-- and yet, if it was really so easy for them to believe this, why are there NO other examples of such a thing during this supposed "age of superstition"? Why are these two cases, of Jesus in the Gospels and Paul in the Acts, the only two examples one can find of any such story of "mere men" made into divine beings? There are others? Where? Who?

If we go back to 400 BC and earlier, perhaps one can produce an example. Elijah/Elisha from I-II Kings might fit this model. Some of the pagan stories fit, but they are probably at least a thousand years earlier.

There is an INCREASE of religious literature during this period, from 400 BC to 100 AD, and yet there are NO examples of reported miracle-workers who appear and are made into gods by naive or superstitious people. Why is there nothing like this in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example? And much other Jewish literature of the period -- the Book of Enoch, the Apocryphal Old Testament, etc.? There's a huge increase of pagan and Jewish literature in the period in which we'd expect to find an example of it.

Yet there's a BLANK. Zilch. Nade! What "age of superstition" are we talking about? Exactly the opposite is the case. Back before 400 BC, there were some miracle stories you could cite in order to prove there was an "age of superstition" to serve as a "context" for creating new miracle stories, or for new miracle heroes to emerge. But the Jesus miracle stories suddenly appear out of nowhere between 30-100 AD. Why the huge empty space from 400 BC to 100 AD? A 500-year period of NO such stories, and we're going to call that the "age of superstition" which caused the Jesus miracle stories?

Let's look at the two stories in Acts which Carrier offers as proof that there was an "age of superstition" happening. In Acts 14 a community is visited by outsiders (Paul and Barnabas), who reportedly do miracles, and the locals react by wanting to worship the visiters as gods. But notice the presence of the "unbelieving Jews" who play a role:

Acts 14 -- 1 Now at Ico'nium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue, and so spoke that a great company believed, both of Jews and of Greeks. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brethren. 3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. 4 But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles. 5 When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to molest them and to stone them, 6 they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycao'nia, and to the surrounding country; 7 and there they preached the gospel.

8 Now at Lystra there was a man sitting, who could not use his feet; he was a cripple from birth, who had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul speaking; and Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." And he sprang up and walked. 11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycao'nian, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, they called Hermes. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the people. . . .

19 But Jews came there from Antioch and Ico'nium; and having persuaded the people, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. 20 But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city; and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe.

Was it a miracle that Paul "rose up" after being left for dead? The "unbelieving Jews" are obviously the same villains as in the earlier Jesus story. The Book of Acts obviously is an extension of the earlier Jesus events, continuing that story forward, and without that earlier starting point, there would be no stories about Peter and Paul doing miracles, or Paul and Barnabas being mistaken for gods.

Regardless what connection there is between this Acts story and real events, there is no way to account for this story as part of an "age of superstition" which caused this story and also the Jesus miracle stories but no others outside the Christian beliefs. Through a 500-year period up to this time there are NO other such stories you can cite which have any similarity to these, no events or reported events which give a "context" for the Jesus miracle claims.

The Acts 28 story is also about the outsider (Paul) making an impression on the naive locals:

Acts 28 -- 1 After we had escaped, we then learned that the island was called Malta. 2 And the natives showed us unusual kindness, for they kindled a fire and welcomed us all, because it had begun to rain and was cold. 3 Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, when a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand. 4 When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live." 5 He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 They waited, expecting him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead; but when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

7 Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the chief man of the island, named Publius, who received us and entertained us hospitably for three days. 8 It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery; and Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him. 9 And when this had taken place, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases also came and were cured.

Note that it's not just the snake bite, but several healing miracles which also impressed the onlookers. And there's another superstition here: "this man is a murderer" the locals said when they saw the snake biting Paul, which they thought must be a punishment from "justice" for some earlier crime.

So Luke is serving us a laundry list of "superstitions" or "miracles" in Acts. Some of it has an uncanny resemblance to the Jesus miracles, like the Peter healing story of Acts 9:36-42 which is almost a carbon copy of Jesus healing the daughter of Jairus, Mark 5:35-43.

But other miracles in Acts are alien to those of the gospel accounts, and even have an ugly side to them -- Acts 5:1-11, where two members of the Jerusalem church community are struck dead because they held back some of their possessions rather than laying them "at the feet of the apostles"; and Acts 13:7-12, where Paul curses a magician, inflicting blindness on him, and thus winning over the proconsul of the island of Cyprus.

These cursing and striking-dead miracles are reminiscent of the Elijah/Elisha miracles from centuries earlier, long before the supposed "age of superstition" into which the Jesus miracles suddenly appeared and which shows no such stories.

So Carrier's examples, about Paul's reported miracles and then the response by the locals to make him into a god, is only one of many types of miracle-magic-superstition stories in Acts, which are not typical to any one period but which Luke draws from different sources going back many centuries.

Obviously the Jesus miracles are one source Luke uses as the springboard to his long train of miracle/magic stories, but clearly he's into all kinds of magic and divine interventions and omens and curses and spells. Before Luke-Acts we don't see any of this, except the Jesus healings in Mark. Obviously it was the earlier accounts about Jesus, like Mark, which set Luke off into his flurry of miracle stories, and without that earlier starting point there would be no Luke-Acts. It was not any "age of superstition" which sparked the Luke-Acts stories, but only Mark and Q and other Jesus reports. Except for this, we see no indication of any "age of superstition" at this time.


"Messiahs and Miracles Galore?" Man-Gods popping up? Where? When?
Where's the "context" for this in the 1st century AD?

Do these two stories of Acts 14 and 28, about Paul being made into a god, show a pattern of commoners easily believing in instant miracle man-gods? Is this a pattern in the "age of superstition"? that a perceived hero gets made into a god somehow, and the simpletons easily fall for it?

If so, and anyone could easily fool the uneducated folks, by pretending to do a miracle -- playing a trick and fooling the crowds, making them into followers -- then where is another example of such a trickster? If Jesus was only one of many such charlatans, then where is there another? No, not after 100 AD -- of course there are many copycat stories appearing that late, using the Jesus stories as their model. But where is there anything earlier? Before 50 AD, or earlier, like 50-100 BC? or 200 BC?

Or other than Peter and Paul in Acts? If these latter miracle claims are fiction, we can easily explain where they came from, having been borrowed from the earlier Jesus events in the gospel accounts. But where is there any earlier example of this, before about 50 AD? or even 100 AD? Why is it that we see no such miracle stories appearing before the gospel accounts had circulated? in either Jewish or pagan literature? unless we go back to before 400 BC?

Why did the superstitions die down, disappear after 400 BC, but then suddenly RE-appear sometime after 30 AD? abruptly, without precedent? without any leadup to them? And then why do additional such stories appear in large numbers after 90-100 AD and the following centuries? There is a huge onslaught of these stories from that time forward, and yet before 50 AD there was nothing.

And whereas these new stories were mostly HEALING miracle stories, we see almost nothing of this kind before the 1st century AD. Nothing except that of the worshipers praying at the statues and temples of the ancient pagan deities. Also the 3 Elijah/Elisha healing stories dating back to about 600 BC, but otherwise no healing miracle claims out of the thousands of Jewish and pagan miracle stories over the many centuries.

So this VOID of superstitions/miracles, this 500-year GAP of no such stories, no new miracle heroes, no new miracle cults or charlatans who won any following or appear in the literature -- this is supposed to be an "age of superstition" or "context" to explain the rise of the Jesus miracles appearing from about 30 AD?

Searching for any other examples turns up many claims of the "supernatural" heroes and wonder-workers and saviors similar to Jesus. But what are the actual examples given? Here's an article claiming other miracle heroes similar to Jesus, to offer the "context" for explaining the Jesus miracle claims. In the end they offer ONLY ONE name of such a figure, and they finally admit that the only source for this is a 2nd-century AD author, more than 100 years removed from the events:

https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/the-roman-world-of-jesus-an-overview/
Especially widespread was the notion of a hero or philosopher who was venerated for his ability to perform miracles or for his great wisdom, . . .

But if this notion was "widespread," then where are there any examples of it other than Jesus in the gospels?

. . . miracles or for his great wisdom, or both. Some modern scholars have called such a figure the “divine man.” These tremendous abilities were believed to be a manifestation of deity, even if the figure was not an immortal god. Yet, it may be that there was also a special class of “divine men” who, it was believed, were rewarded with the status of immortality at death.

It's amazing how this goes on without giving any examples. But now finally we're given one:

One of the most famous was the itinerant Pythagorean philosopher Apollonius of Tyana (Asia Minor) who was said to have been sired by the Egyptian God Proteus, and to have gathered followers, taught, helped the poor, healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, and appeared to his followers after death to discourse on immortality. He lived through most of the first Christian century, and shortly after 217 CE a “Life” of him was written by Philostratus.

And except for this there is NO source for any of this character's miracle acts. There is some reference to him, and a monument, but nothing attesting to his miracle acts. He surely existed, was probably a great guy, and it's easy to explain how he became mythologized, having a long illustrious career and wide reputation. But no miracle claims until 217 AD.

There is no evidence that Philostratus drew on the gospels . . .

Of course not! He obviously borrowed those miracle stories from Superman comics, all copies of which were destroyed by the Council of Nicea's book-burning squads.

. . . thus, the lives of famous heroes raise the question whether there were any literary prototypes for . . .

But the only one named doesn't appear in any source until 130 (140) years later. How can a 217 AD source be a "prototype" for the gospels of the 1st century?

Are we having trouble understanding what "prototype" means?

"Prototype" definition: a first, typical or preliminary model of something, especially a machine, from which other forms are developed or copied.

Are we having trouble understanding that 217 AD is AFTER, not BEFORE the 1st century when the gospel accounts were written?

. . .the question whether there were any literary prototypes for the New Testament “gospel.”

And the answer is a resounding NO!

Obviously, if there were any examples from an earlier source they would surely give it. What is the secret? Why won't they give any example from an earlier source, from before 30 or 50 AD? even 100 AD? There is NOTHING for centuries earlier giving any hero figure or miracle-worker or "divine man" from any of the literature.

This virtually proves the case. The Jesus miracle-worker of about 30 AD is totally without any explanation from all the experts and scholars, who can cite no precedent, no other case of anyone mentioned in all the literature showing any claims of a person in history having power to perform miracle acts. Clearly they are BAFFLED and CONFOUNDED by the lack of anything to explain what made this oddball miracle-worker pop up out-of-order, and to suddenly accumulate a quantity of evidence way beyond any other, following all those centuries of zero parallels or comparisons.

Going backward from 500 BC there are cases which begin appearing, in the folklore and myths, of miracle heroes or characters taken to be gods in one sense or another. In the 400s we find Herodotus relating some possible "miracle" incidents, omens, but no hero figure performing miracle acts. It's basically a 500-600-year time-out for miracles or miracle heroes.

Until AFTER 100 AD when we see the miracle heroes again, exploding onto the stage, and continuing uninterrupted up to modern times. How is this explained?


(This Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[lpetrich]

Link improved: Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels -- it's great.

No such "age of superstition" exists. It's just another Jesus-debunker fabrication. ...

Lumpenproletariat, I have to ask you: how familiar are you with the primary literature? Like the writings of the ancient historians themselves. Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars has lots of accounts of miracles. Like about Augustus Caesar:

When, in ancient times, a part of the city wall at Velitrae (Velletri) was struck by lightning, it was prophesied that a citizen of the place would one day rule the world. Such was their confidence in the prediction, that the people of Velitrae immediately declared war on the Romans, and fought many subsequent wars against Rome, until they themselves were almost obliterated. Centuries later, events proved the validity of the omen, and that it had foretold the rise of Augustus.

According to Julius Marathus, a portent was widely observed in Rome, a few months before Augustus’ birth, indicating that Nature was about to produce a king once more for the Roman people. The Senate were so concerned they decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but a group of Senators with pregnant wives, each hoping for a son to fulfil the prediction, prevented the decree being filed in the Treasury and becoming law.

I have read this tale too, in the Theologumena, the Discourses on the Gods, of Asclepiades of Mendes. Augustus’ mother, Atia, with a group of married women, was attending a solemn midnight service in the Temple of Apollo and, once her litter had been set down, she settled to sleep with the rest. Suddenly a serpent appeared, insinuated itself into her, and after a while slithered away. On waking, she purified herself, as if after intimacy with her husband, and at once an indelible mark, like the serpent and with its colouring, showed on her body, such that afterwards she always avoided public bathing. Augustus was born nine months later and regarded as the son of the god, a child of Apollo. Also, Atia dreamed before the birth that her innards were borne upwards to the stars and there spread over all the land and sea, while Octavius, his father, dreamed that the sun rose from Atia’s womb.

...
When he was learning to talk, he ordered the frogs croaking loudly in a pool on his grandfather’s estate, to be silent, and they say no frog has ever croaked there since. And later, as he sat eating his lunch, one day, in a copse by the Appian Way’s fourth milestone, an eagle swooped down, to his surprise, and snatched the bread from his hand, then after soaring to a great height flew smoothly down again, and returned it to him.

(Translation: Microsoft Word - Suetoniuspdf.doc - 20121106193837suetoniuspdf_pdf.pdf)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Where are the ancient miracle stories which set the stage for the Jesus miracles in the gospel accounts?

C'mon, gang! You can do better than this!

Link improved: Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels -- it's great.

Lumpenproletariat, I have to ask you: how familiar are you with the primary literature? Like the writings of the ancient historians themselves. Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars has lots of accounts of miracles.

This wasn't written until 120 AD. This is long AFTER the "age of superstition" which caused the gospel accounts to be written. We're looking for something from this "age" which PRE-DATES the gospel accounts.

Like about Augustus Caesar:

When, in ancient times, a part of the city wall at Velitrae (Velletri) was struck by lightning, it was prophesied that a citizen of the place would one day rule the world. Such was their confidence in the prediction, that the people of Velitrae immediately declared war on the Romans, and fought many subsequent wars against Rome, until they themselves were almost obliterated. Centuries later, events proved the validity of the omen, and that it had foretold the rise of Augustus.

Is it asking too much that this be something which happened after 500 BC and before 100 AD? That's a pretty long time span. You can't find ONE miracle event during that 600-year period? I'm sure you can.

The above prophecy story dates back to before 600 BC. I acknowledged that there are miracle stories that far back, although a simple prophecy is a very weak example. There are the pagan heroes from centuries earlier, or even thousands of years.

How about a "man-god" who reportedly did miracles. There are supposedly several examples of these? Nothing between 500 BC and 100 AD? Not one?

According to Julius Marathus, a portent was widely observed in Rome, a few months before Augustus’ birth, indicating that Nature was about to produce a king once more for the Roman people. The Senate were so concerned they decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but a group of Senators with pregnant wives, each hoping for a son to fulfil the prediction, prevented the decree being filed in the Treasury and becoming law.

Where's the "miracle" here? You have the right time period, 1st century BC. But just a "portent"? That's all you can turn up?

I have read this tale too, in the Theologumena, the Discourses on the Gods, of Asclepiades of Mendes. Augustus’ mother, Atia, with a group of married women, was attending a solemn midnight service in the Temple of Apollo and, once her litter had been set down, she settled to sleep with the rest. Suddenly a serpent appeared, insinuated itself into her, and after a while slithered away. On waking, she purified herself, as if after intimacy with her husband, and at once an indelible mark, like the serpent and with its colouring, showed on her body, such that afterwards she always avoided public bathing. Augustus was born nine months later and regarded as the son of the god, a child of Apollo. Also, Atia dreamed before the birth that her innards were borne upwards to the stars and there spread over all the land and sea, while Octavius, his father, dreamed that the sun rose from Atia’s womb.

Is this the best you can find? Another miracle-birth story? Those are numerous, especially for famous conqueror-ruler-celebrities. So this is the best you can offer?

When he was learning to talk, he ordered the frogs croaking loudly in a pool on his grandfather’s estate, to be silent, and they say no frog has ever croaked there since.

Ah-HAH! That's where the calming-of-the-storm miracle in the gospels came from! The SMOKING GUN! Jesus stole that line: "Peace! Be still!" from Augustus who spoke this when he ordered the frogs to shut up.

At last the truth is out! Jesus stole this from the calming-of-the-frogs story.

And later, as he sat eating his lunch, one day, in a copse by the Appian Way’s fourth milestone, an eagle swooped down, to his surprise, and snatched the bread from his hand, then after soaring to a great height flew smoothly down again, and returned it to him.

(Translation: Microsoft Word - Suetoniuspdf.doc - 20121106193837suetoniuspdf_pdf.pdf)

You say there are "lots of accounts of miracles," and yet the above is the best you can offer? 120 AD?

I know Suetonius refers to earlier alleged events. The two authors he cites are impossible to identify. Isn't there anything more definite than this? If it happened in 30 or 40 or 50 BC that's in the correct time frame, but why is Suetonius the only source for it?

What's the problem with finding something really before the Jesus stories appeared? Why do you have to cite something not written until after this "age of superstition" rather than during it, which explains how the gospel accounts originated?

Can't you find something written about 50 BC or 100 BC indicating miracle events someone claims happened? or 200 BC? Why does everything offered have to be so late? This was AFTER the gospel stories appeared.

Is there anything where someone is said to be a "god" because he did a miracle?

It looks like you're trying desperately to find something, but the above only shows that there's virtually nothing there. If this is the best you can do, you're really proving my point.

Of course you can find an omen here or there, a prophecy, etc. You think these constitute the "age of superstition" which explains the appearance of the Jesus miracle stories, of the lame and blind etc. being healed, the dead being raised, etc.?

If there really was any "age of superstition" in which there were miracle claims, which set the stage for the Jesus miracle stories, you at least have to come up with something earlier than Suetonius.

And you can't find something more than just an omen, or a configuration of stars? sign in the heavens? eagles or frogs playing a gag on someone? How about one of those "god-men" who did miracles -- or someone thought they did. There are supposed to be several of them. You're admitting that those "god-men" really did not exist after all?

 

[DBT]

But still no actual evidence for the reality of miracles (things that contravene the laws of physics, walking on water, etc) or that Jesus existed as described and had supernatural credentials. All the rest is just window dressing.

 

[lpetrich]

(Me quoting Suetonius...)

This wasn't written until 120 AD. This is long AFTER the "age of superstition" which caused the gospel accounts to be written. We're looking for something from this "age" which PRE-DATES the gospel accounts.

Augustus Caesar, the subject of my quotes of Suetonius, was born in 63 BCE, and he became Emperor in 27 BCE and died in 14 CE.

From Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers, here are some typical datings of the Gospels:

• Mark: 65 - 80 CE
• Matthew: 80 - 100 CE
• Luke: 80 - 130 CE
• John: 90 - 120 CE

They are thus close to overlapping with the composition of Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars (published 121 CE). So there wasn't some big gap.

Returning, I'll now date the sources of Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels

• Acts of the Apostles (80-130 CE): Paul surviving a snakebite (28.6), man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18)
• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (93 - 94 CE), The Jewish War (ca, 75 CE): in 70 CE, lots of "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (War 2.259-60, Antiq 20.167), "The Egyptian" (War 2.261-2, Antiq 20.170, cf. Acts 21:38), Jonathan (War 7.437-8), Theudas (Antiq, 20.97, cf. Acts 5:36, Acts 8:9-11). I note a riot in the Jerusalem Temple provoked by a Roman soldier (Antiq 20.5).
• Plutarch, Parallel Lives (around 100 CE): did a statue speak? (Life of Coriolanus 37.3 -- 5th cy. BCE)
• Suetonius, Twelve Caesars (121 CE): curing the blind and lame (Life of Vespasian 7.13, cf. Tacitus, Histories 4.81 -- 9 CE - 69 CE - 79 CE)
• Tacitus, Histories (100 - 110 CE)
• Lucian of Samosata (125 - 180 CE), several books: cures by statues (Council of the Gods 12, cf. Pausanias 6.5.4-9, 11.2-9; Lover of Lies 18-20), discussion of Peregrinus Proteus (95 - 165 CE) and Alexander of Abonutichus (105 -  170 CE)
• Pausanias (110 - 180 CE), Description of Greece
• Athenagoras (133 - 190 CE), Embassy to the Christians: opposed curative powers of statues (26)
• Temples for the god Asclepius, testimonial inscriptions (4th cy. BCE - 3rd cy. CE and later, over the Roman Empire)
• Philostratus (170 - 245 CE), Life of Apollonius of Tyana (15 - 100 CE): worked numerous miracles, including ascending to Heaven

Lots of overlap in time.

Richard Carrier elsewhere refers to Zalmoxis, referred to in Herodotus's History (44 BCE) as someone who made it seem like he had died and was resurrected

 

[Keith&Co.]

But still no actual evidence for the reality of miracles (things that contravene the laws of physics, walking on water, etc) .

That is an important point.

Lumpy tries to pretend that it's the critics' who hold a dogmatic view that miracles are impossible. But the fact is, he does, too.

The full statement for both sides' opinion of miracles would be 'events that are impossible to occur without divine intervention.'
Since atheists don't believe in anything divine, we can express the sentiment more succinctly aw 'events that re impossible.' So for us to be convinced that such things have happened, we would need some outstandingly good evidence offered in support of the events. Walls of text and incredible ignorance about the way history works, these are not outstandingly good evidence.


Lumpy also believes that miracles to be 'events that are impossible to occur without divine intervention.'
He has to.
This is the only way he can draw a connection between Jesus performing miracles and Jesus being able to offer a guarantee of eternal life up in the skybuddy's cloud castle. They HAVE to be divine-sourced because if there's any other possible explanation for a miracle, then even if he can prove to us that the 'healing miracles' happened, he's still got to do the roadwork to connect this fact to any evidence of God, of God's promise of any sort of afterlife, of that afterlife being desirable, and of Jesus being a pathway to get to the magic cloud castle.


It's really kind of stupid, just how much of the argument Lumpy skips over, taking it as a given in order to assert that it's reasonable for him to think that a minimalist approach to being Christain (believe Jesus did miracles, but don't adopt any particular behaviors or associated beliefs or perform any sacrifices) gets him into Heaven.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What "Age of Superstition"? These are the "miracles galore" which preceded the Jesus miracles?

Come on, guys! You can't do any better than this? I want my money back!

(Me quoting Suetonius...)

This wasn't written until 120 AD. This is long AFTER the "age of superstition" which caused the gospel accounts to be written. We're looking for something from this "age" which PRE-DATES the gospel accounts.

Augustus Caesar, the subject of my quotes of Suetonius, was born in 63 BCE, and he became Emperor in 27 BCE and died in 14 CE.

But the only source for this is 120 AD.

And even so, there is no miracle event reported, except a prophecy. I acknowledge that there are a few omens and prophecies. It is pathetic that you cannot find anything better than this.

The emperors Augustus and Vespasian were extremely popular, unlike the others, and it's to be expected that there would be some stories about such popular celebrities who had a wide reputation. Yet there's almost nothing. Perhaps the frog story about Augustus, and the healing story about Vespasian, but there's virtually nothing.

From Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers, here are some typical datings of the Gospels:

• Mark: 65 - 80 CE
• Matthew: 80 - 100 CE
• Luke: 80 - 130 CE
• John: 90 - 120 CE

The following is more reliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating (2 sources given for each (click the link and the note)). The dates do not spill over so much into the 2nd century:

Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]

Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]

Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]

John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

They are thus close to overlapping with the composition of Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars (published 121 CE). So there wasn't some big gap.

You're missing the point. The gospels and Paul are prior to Suetonius and everything else cited by Carrier. You're supposed to show us an "age of superstition" which PRECEDED the gospel accounts and which explain how the miracle stories of Jesus were caused by that "age of superstition." But you can't give one example of a miracle story appearing prior to the gospel accounts.

Also, you omitted Paul, a source for the Jesus resurrection, dated about 55 AD. So the Jesus resurrection appears in the writings no later than this, and the healing miracles no later than 65-70 AD.

Returning, I'll now date the sources of Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels

• Acts of the Apostles (80-130 CE): Paul surviving a snakebite (28.6), man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18)

This book begins the period of a new rash of miracle stories at around 90-100 AD. The new explosion of miracle stories at this point is very obvious. Also it's obvious that this Book of Acts was inspired entirely by the earlier gospel accounts, and some of its miracle stories have a very strong resemblance to those earlier Jesus miracles. This obviously is not part of the "age of superstition" which inspired the Jesus stories, but rather, the latter are what inspired the Acts of the Apostles.

• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (93 - 94 CE), The Jewish War (ca, 75 CE): in 70 CE, lots of "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (War 2.259-60, Antiq 20.167), "The Egyptian" (War 2.261-2, Antiq 20.170, cf. Acts 21:38), Jonathan (War 7.437-8), Theudas (Antiq, 20.97, cf. Acts 5:36, Acts 8:9-11). I note a riot in the Jerusalem Temple provoked by a Roman soldier (Antiq 20.5).

But there are no miracle stories in any of this. This was all political rebellion by militants and dissidents. There is no claim by Josephus or anyone else that any of these rebel leaders performed a miracle act.

Also, you really need to find something earlier. What's the problem with finding a miracle story back before 50 AD? Why does the "age of superstition" have to begin simultaneously with the Jesus miracle stories, or slightly after these?

• Plutarch, Parallel Lives (around 100 CE): did a statue speak? (Life of Coriolanus 37.3 -- 5th cy. BCE)

You prove my point with this example. Why is it that the "talking statue" story appears only in Plutarch, writing at "the beginning of the second century AD" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_Lives ???????

There were earlier writers who wrote about Coriolanus. Why didn't they mention this talking statue?

• Suetonius, Twelve Caesars (121 CE): curing the blind and lame (Life of Vespasian 7.13, cf. Tacitus, Histories 4.81 -- 9 CE - 69 CE - 79 CE)
• Tacitus, Histories (100 - 110 CE)

Granted, there is this one healing story which has more credibility because it's in 2 sources rather than only one. Vespasian was the most popular Roman emperor (or 2nd after Augustus) and was easily the object of much gossip and mythologizing. Still, this appears AFTER the Jesus healing stories, not before.

If we assume that this reported miracle event was earlier, reported by the writers but existing earlier, we have to assume the same about the Jesus miracle stories, which are earlier than 65-70 when they first appear, or earlier than 55 AD when the resurrection is first mentioned.

So the Vespasian story cannot be part of an "age of superstition" which caused the Jesus miracle stories to be written.

Or rather, you still have to show this "age of superstition" existing BEFORE the Jesus miracle stories appeared. You still cannot come up with something earlier, but only miracle claims happening AFTER the Jesus stories appeared.

All of which indicates that it was the Jesus stories, appearing somewhere no later than 55-70 AD, which caused this later "age of superstition" rather than the latter being the cause of the gospel stories.

• Lucian of Samosata (125 - 180 CE), several books: cures by statues (Council of the Gods 12, cf. Pausanias 6.5.4-9, 11.2-9; Lover of Lies 18-20), discussion of Peregrinus Proteus (95 - 165 CE) and Alexander of Abonutichus (105 -  170 CE)
• Pausanias (110 - 180 CE), Description of Greece
• Athenagoras (133 - 190 CE), Embassy to the Christians: opposed curative powers of statues (26)

Again, you're proving my point. All these citations are later, AFTER the gospel accounts were written, not before. You are proving that there was no "age of superstition" which caused the gospel accounts of the Jesus miracles.

• Temples for the god Asclepius, testimonial inscriptions (4th cy. BCE - 3rd cy. CE and later, over the Roman Empire)

This is the best you have. There are inscriptions at temples and statues where worshipers of the ancient gods prayed and claimed to have been healed.

Many of these "healing" miracles were of women who had been infertile and claim to have gotten pregnant from being there and praying to the ancient pagan god. These are like millions/billions? of healing stories by religious people of all ages claiming to be healed by an ancient healing deity. Not part of any special "age of superstition" in the 1st century BC leading up to the Jesus miracle stories. This is the only example you have of any miracle claim you can find between 400 BC to 50-100 AD.

These inscriptions at pagan temples/statues never have any healer appearing, nor any new miracle-worker or charlatan guru, other than the priest worshiping the ancient pagan deity, performing the ancient rites. No "man-god" or human taken for a god because he performed any miracle act, no new cult, no new religious teaching, no new charismatic faith-healer, nothing resembling anything in the gospel accounts.

• Philostratus (170 - 245 CE), Life of Apollonius of Tyana (15 - 100 CE): worked numerous miracles, including ascending to Heaven

But there is no mention of this character until 215 AD, way too late to be part of an "age of superstition" which caused the Jesus miracle stories. Rather, it is obviously the other way around, i.e., the gospel accounts explain the appearance of the Apollonius stories, some of which resemble the Jesus of the gospels.

Lots of overlap in time.

There's virtually no overlap. All the above examples appeared after 100 AD, though it's possible the Vespasian story existed earlier, just as the Jesus stories existed before they were first recorded. Also the Acts stories might be from the 90s AD, but these are obviously a product of the earlier Jesus stories.

Richard Carrier elsewhere refers to Zalmoxis, referred to in Herodotus's History (440 BCE) as someone who made it seem like he had died and was resurrected

So you recognize that between 400 BC to 50 AD there are NO miracle stories appearing in the literature. And that's supposed to be an "age of superstition" which provided the "context" for the Jesus miracle stories to appear?

Also, it's not true that there was any reported resurrection of Zalmoxis. This is a horrible example. That this is all you can come up with is proof that there was NOTHING, no miracle stories, appearing during this period, from 500 BC (or 400 BC) up to about 50 or 100 AD.

Yes, there's an omen or 2 in Herodotus, and a battle-scene "miracle" of sorts. Pretty poor examples, plus you have to reach way back before 400 BC to find it.

Obviously there is an occasional omen, or a prophecy. You have to do better than this. You and Carrier get a D- , -- you're entitled to 1 or 2 sympathy points for your effort.

 

[lpetrich]

From Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers, here are some typical datings of the Gospels:

• Mark: 65 - 80 CE
• Matthew: 80 - 100 CE
• Luke: 80 - 130 CE
• John: 90 - 120 CE

The following is more reliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating (2 sources given for each (click the link and the note)). The dates do not spill over so much into the 2nd century:

Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]

Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]

Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]

John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Rather close to the dates in Early Christian Writings. So it's not the great triumph that you seem to think it is.

 

[lpetrich]

You're missing the point. The gospels and Paul are prior to Suetonius and everything else cited by Carrier. You're supposed to show us an "age of superstition" which PRECEDED the gospel accounts and which explain how the miracle stories of Jesus were caused by that "age of superstition." But you can't give one example of a miracle story appearing prior to the gospel accounts.

 Ab Urbe Condita Libri (Livy), Titus Livius's History of Rome was written around 27 - 9 BCE, so it's older than Jesus Christ. It has numerous accounts of miracles from Rome's early years.

62. In Rome or near it many prodigies occurred that winter, or —as often happens when men's thoughts are once turned upon religion —many were reported and too easily credited. Some of these portents were: that a free-born infant of six months had cried “Triumph!” [2] in the provision market; that in the cattle market an ox had climbed, [3??] of its own accord, to the third storey of a house and then, alarmed by the outcry of the occupants, had thrown itself down; [4] that phantom ships had been seen gleaming in the sky; that the temple of Hope, in the provision market, had been struck by lightning; that in Lanuvium a slain victim had stirred, and a raven had flown down into Juno's temple and alighted on her very couch; that in the district of Amiternum, in many places, apparitions of men in shining raiment had appeared in the distance, but had not drawn near to anyone; [5] that in the Picentian country there had been a shower of pebbles; that at Caere the lots had shrunk;1 that in Gaul a wolf had snatched a sentry's sword from its scabbard and run off with it. [6] For the other prodigies the decemviri were commanded to consult the Books,2 but for [p. 187]the shower of pebbles in the Picentian country a3 nine days' sacrifice was proclaimed.

...
1 The lots were inscribed on little wooden or bronze tablets; they are also associated with Praeneste, Falerii, and Patavium.

2 The Sibylline Books were wont to be consulted (but only on the express command of the senate) as to the meaning and proper expiation of portents.

3 B.C. 218

Source: Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 21, chapter 62

Here is another one:

[8] To add to the general feeling of apprehension, information was received of portents having occurred simultaneously in several places. In Sicily several of the soldiers' darts were covered with flames; in Sardinia the same thing happened to the staff in the hand of an officer who was going his rounds to inspect the sentinels on the wall; the shores had been lit up by numerous fires; [9] a couple of shields had sweated blood; some soldiers had been struck by lightning; an eclipse of the sun had been observed; at Praeneste there had been a shower of red-hot stones; at Arpi shields had been seen in the sky and the sun had appeared to be fighting with the moon; [10] at Capena two moons were visible in the daytime; at Caere the waters ran mingled with blood, and even the spring of Hercules had bubbled up with drops of blood on the water; at Antium the ears of corn which fell into the reapers' basket were blood-stained; at Falerii the sky seemed to be cleft asunder as with an enormous rift and all over the opening there was a blazing light; [11] the oracular tablets shrank and shrivelled without being touched and one [12??] had fallen out with this inscription, "MARS IS SHAKING HIS SPEAR"; and at the same time the statue of Mars on the Appian Way and the images of the Wolves sweated blood. Finally, at Capua the sight was seen of the sky on fire and the moon falling in the midst of a shower of rain. [13] Then credence was given to comparatively trifling portents, such as that certain people's goats were suddenly clothed with wool, a hen turned into a cock, and a cock into a hen.

Source: Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 22, chapter 1

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The more we search, the less we see any "age of superstition" context which could have produced the Jesus miracle stories.

You're missing the point. The gospels and Paul are prior to Suetonius and everything else cited by Carrier. You're supposed to show us an "age of superstition" which PRECEDED the gospel accounts and which explain how the miracle stories of Jesus were caused by that "age of superstition." But you can't give one example of a miracle story appearing prior to the gospel accounts.

 Ab Urbe Condita Libri (Livy), Titus Livius's History of Rome was written around 27 - 9 BCE, so it's older than Jesus Christ. It has numerous accounts of miracles from Rome's early years.

62. In Rome or near it many prodigies occurred that winter, or —as often happens when men's thoughts are once turned upon religion —many were reported and too easily credited. Some of these portents were: that a free-born infant of six months had cried “Triumph!” [2] in the provision market; that in the cattle market an ox had climbed, [3??] of its own accord, to the third storey of a house and then, alarmed by the outcry of the occupants, had thrown itself down; [4] that phantom ships had been seen gleaming in the sky; that the temple of Hope, in the provision market, had been struck by lightning; that in Lanuvium a slain victim had stirred, and a raven had flown down into Juno's temple and alighted on her very couch; that in the district of Amiternum, in many places, apparitions of men in shining raiment had appeared in the distance, but had not drawn near to anyone; [5] that in the Picentian country there had been a shower of pebbles; that at Caere the lots had shrunk;1 that in Gaul a wolf had snatched a sentry's sword from its scabbard and run off with it. [6] For the other prodigies the decemviri were commanded to consult the Books,2 but for [p. 187]the shower of pebbles in the Picentian country a3 nine days' sacrifice was proclaimed.

...
1 The lots were inscribed on little wooden or bronze tablets; they are also associated with Praeneste, Falerii, and Patavium.

2 The Sibylline Books were wont to be consulted (but only on the express command of the senate) as to the meaning and proper expiation of portents.

3 B.C. 218

Source: Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 21, chapter 62

Here is another one:

[8] To add to the general feeling of apprehension, information was received of portents having occurred simultaneously in several places. In Sicily several of the soldiers' darts were covered with flames; in Sardinia the same thing happened to the staff in the hand of an officer who was going his rounds to inspect the sentinels on the wall; the shores had been lit up by numerous fires; [9] a couple of shields had sweated blood; some soldiers had been struck by lightning; an eclipse of the sun had been observed; at Praeneste there had been a shower of red-hot stones; at Arpi shields had been seen in the sky and the sun had appeared to be fighting with the moon; [10] at Capena two moons were visible in the daytime; at Caere the waters ran mingled with blood, and even the spring of Hercules had bubbled up with drops of blood on the water; at Antium the ears of corn which fell into the reapers' basket were blood-stained; at Falerii the sky seemed to be cleft asunder as with an enormous rift and all over the opening there was a blazing light; [11] the oracular tablets shrank and shrivelled without being touched and one [12??] had fallen out with this inscription, "MARS IS SHAKING HIS SPEAR"; and at the same time the statue of Mars on the Appian Way and the images of the Wolves sweated blood. Finally, at Capua the sight was seen of the sky on fire and the moon falling in the midst of a shower of rain. [13] Then credence was given to comparatively trifling portents, such as that certain people's goats were suddenly clothed with wool, a hen turned into a cock, and a cock into a hen.

Source: Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 22, chapter 1

Note that Livy never says any of these reported events really happened, but only that they were reported. I.e., in Book 21:

. . . many prodigies occurred that winter, or —as often happens when men's thoughts are once turned upon religion —many were reported and too easily credited.

And in Book 22:

. . . Men's fears were augmented by the prodigies reported simultaneously from many places. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0152:book=22

"reported" = "nuntiata" in both the above excerpts.

So Livy isn't saying these events happened, but only that they were reported, and clearly he says in the Book 21 text that these were "too easily credited."

So you've found a source saying such claims were made, but not anyone saying such things actually happened.

Whereas there are easily dozens of quotes, AFTER 100 AD, where a writer says such events actually happened. Like the Apollonius of Tyana account, and most of the others cited by Carrier.

Plutarch says there was something to the claim of the talking statue, because there were witnesses. And both Suetonius and Tacitus say the Vespasian miracle happened (though it's likely they didn't believe it). The reports in the Book of Acts about Paul healing the sick say it actually happened, not just that it was reported.

The pattern is very clear that from 100 (90) AD and later there were many miracle claims, in the written sources we have, and these say the miracle events happened, not just that they were reported.

And yet prior to this time, and going back several centuries, the best you can find is a writer saying someone reported such things, or that there were rumors, someone believed it, etc. Why can't you find any clear-cut case of a miracle being reported as actually having happened?

Of course you can find claims of portents, omens, weird happenings -- though you're having trouble finding any good examples. You have to admit that they are extremely rare, considering that you've been searching and searching, and yet the best you can offer is this source who clearly casts doubt on the truth of the claims. And of course reports of omens and portents are characteristic of ALL ages or periods -- no more common in the time when the gospels were written than any other period of history.

So this is the best you can find of "miracle" claims during this period, PRIOR to Jesus and the gospels, or leading up to this point? Only Livy reporting claims he didn't believe?

So, you acknowledge then that there were no miracle-workers. No examples of the following (from Carrier's Kooks & Quacks) https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html ):

There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and . . .

I.e., there was no such thing as this prior to 50 (100) AD. Right? From Livy or others. There's no examples of humans taken to be divine during the "age of superstition" leading up to Christ in the gospels. I.e., from 500 BC - 50 (100) AD, in the "age of superstition" just before Jesus and causing the Jesus miracle claims, which had to come AFTER the "age of superstition" had begun, i.e. the "context" of that period which produced such miracle claims.

And --

These stories show how ready people were to believe that gods can take on human form and walk among them, and that a simple show was sufficient to convince them that mere men were such divine beings.

He's wrong here also, you agree, during the period 500 BC - 50 (100) AD. There are no examples one can give of humans taken to be divine because of some miracle act they did.

You have no examples of this to offer. E.g., there are no examples from Livy etc. Only reported portents and omens which the source doesn't believe. No source saying the miracle event actually happened, such as we have in the gospel accounts, and other accounts after 100 AD.

Miraculous healings were also commonplace.

But only that of praying to a statue and the worshiper claiming to be healed by the ancient healing god. No cases of any recent charlatan healer performing such acts. Only the belief in the ancient pagan god which had been worshiped 1000+ years into the past.

Except for these, there were no healing miracle claims, you admit.

This more general evidence of credulity in the Roman Empire shows the prevalence of belief in divine miracle working of all kinds.

No, not "all kinds," but only the kind where the miracle-worker was an ancient god from centuries ago rather than a current person. You recognize that these were the only cases of "miracle working," with no cases of any new guru or cult figure showing up and causing a new religion -- not that kind of "divine miracle working." The only case of any new miracle cult(s) or religion springing up, a new miracle-worker appearing on the scene, is that of the new Christ cult(s), and the reports of Jesus performing such acts in the gospel accounts -- no other examples of anything like this, before 100 AD, and going back to 500 BC. At least a 600-year period of no such events, except the one glaring exception of Jesus in the gospels, appearing somewhere after 30 AD.

From this it is all the more apparent that religious crazes were a dime a dozen in the time and place of the Gospels, . . .

But no more so than at any other time. Actually the "religious crazes" were more common AFTER the time and place of the Gospels, and also prior to about 500 BC. I.e., "the time and place of the Gospels" had FEWER religious crazes than normal, not more.

. . . helping to explain why a new and strange religion like Christianity could become so popular, . . .

No, because there were other "new and strange" religions also which did NOT become popular, even were forgotten without leaving a trace. There's no explanation why we have evidence for miracle events in this one case only, being attested to by multiple sources rather than only one, and closer in time to the reputed events than most of the examples which Carrier cites. So he's wrong to say this helps "to explain why" the Jesus miracle stories became popular and were published, and yet no others were.

Why didn't this period of "religious crazes" cause any of the other "new and strange" miracle cults to become popular?

. . . and its claims--which to us sound absurd--could be so readily believed.

No, because if it was readily believed, we should see hundreds of other miracle cults similar to the Christ belief, since they too should have been readily believed for the reason the Christ claims were. Why were ONLY the Christ claims readily believed and not dozens or hundreds of others also? Nothing here explains why only these Christ claims were so readily believed so that we have written accounts which the believers copied and copied. Why did only the Christ believers provide a record and multiple copies? Why did none of the many other cult followers take their belief seriously enough to provide a written record of it?

So you admit Carrier is wrong in claiming to explain how the Jesus miracle stories originated and were believed, though you're correct that this period had its normal share of omens and portents and claims of weird stuff; these are common to ALL periods or ages, not just the time the Christ gospels appeared, and yet such beliefs caused no other new miracle cult(s) to be published or claims of new miracle-workers or miracle acts; and so such portents and omens etc. cannot explain the appearance of the new Christ cult(s) in the 1st century AD, in which there are no other miracle cults appearing, or any evidence of it.

So all you can offer are some weird stories from Livy, who says these were reports that lack credibility. But you can't find anything to verify the "context" of superstitions and miracles which Carrier says produced the gospel accounts.

He even digresses further to explain why other miracles such as weeping or bleeding--even moaning--statues could be explained as natural phenomena, showing a modest but refreshing degree of skeptical reasoning that would make the Amazing Randi proud. What is notable is not that Plutarch proves himself to have some good sense, but that he felt it was necessary to make such an argument at all.

Yes, because in 100 AD when Plutarch wrote this there was beginning to be a wider belief in miracle claims. The new "age of superstition" was beginning at about this time, as we see so much evidence of it in the following decades and centuries. BUT NOT BEFORE. You have no example of anything written earlier which says such things happened. (Except for the gospel accounts, which stick out so conspicuously during this time and have no resemblance to anything else at this time or before, unless you go way back several centuries to find the ancient myths.)

Clearly, such miracles were still reported and believed in his own time.

In 100 AD perhaps. But where's the evidence of it 100 years earlier, or 200 or 300 years earlier?

I find this to be a particularly interesting passage, since we have thousands of believers flocking to weeping and bleeding statues even today. Certainly the pagan gods must also exist if they could make their statues weep and bleed as well!

This raises the question: Were there really any reports of "weeping statues" in the pre-Christian period? I.e., of pagan statues weeping, in sources BEFORE the 1st century AD? Everyone assumes there were such claims, e.g., Carrier above. But what earlier source has anything about this? The most common sources for this are Plutarch, Lucan, and Dio Cassius, which are all 100 AD and later. Is there anything in the earlier literature, from pagan sources, relating such beliefs or claims or anecdotes about weeping statues?

Here's an English rendering of a line from Virgil's Georgics (Book 1, line 480):

The weeping statues did the wars foretell,
and holy sweat from brazen idols fell.

But another translation renders it:

Rivers stopped, earth split, and sad, the ivories wept
in the temples, and the bronze sweated.

And Virgil's Latin:

infandum! sistunt amnes terraeque dehiscunt
et maestum inlacrimat templis ebur aeraque sudant.

The ivory sheds tears, the (bronze) statues sweat.

Let's assume it means the statues wept. This poetry is hardly an example of an anecdote about statues weeping, reported by worshipers at the temples. Is there any better example than this poetry, reporting on statues weeping?

The "weeping statues" phenomenon might really be a product of later fantasizing by Christians, which spread to the pagan worshipers also, perhaps around 100 AD. Is there any evidence to show that it happened among pagans earlier? We need something more than a line of poetry, with metaphor and symbolism, to indicate that people believed a statue actually did weep.

This "weeping statues" question is not critical to the main point here, which is that the Jesus miracle claims, in the gospels, cannot be depicted as a product of any "age of superstition" during this period. But it is interesting to raise the question, because everyone believes there were "weeping statues" among the pagans and that this was borrowed by Christians from those earlier pagan superstitions. But it is difficult to find references to the phenomenon in the earlier pagan sources.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[lpetrich]

So Livy isn't saying these events happened, but only that they were reported, and clearly he says in the Book 21 text that these were "too easily credited."

So you've found a source saying such claims were made, but not anyone saying such things actually happened.

That is a miserable failure of an argument. This reporting indicates that some people believed that these miracles had happened.

Whereas there are easily dozens of quotes, AFTER 100 AD, where a writer says such events actually happened. Like the Apollonius of Tyana account, and most of the others cited by Carrier.

What's your argument? That people started claiming that miracles happened only after the canonical Gospels were written?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

A change in thinking about miracle claims took place gradually from 30 AD to 100 AD.

So Livy isn't saying these events happened, but only that they were reported, and clearly he says in the Book 21 text that these were "too easily credited."

So you've found a source saying such claims were made, but not anyone saying such things actually happened.

That is a miserable failure of an argument. This reporting indicates that some people believed that these miracles had happened.

Of course there was some belief. But it makes a big difference that writers began claiming the events really happened, rather than scoffing at the claims as they had always done earlier.

Whereas there are easily dozens of quotes, AFTER 100 AD, where a writer says such events actually happened. Like the Apollonius of Tyana account, and most of the others cited by Carrier.

What's your argument? That people started claiming that miracles happened only after the canonical Gospels were written?

After the Jesus miracle stories had become widely circulated, in both oral and written accounts. These accounts caused an increase in such belief in miracle events. The change in thinking began at least as early as the Paul epistles, in 55 AD, but probably earlier. It was a gradual process, so that by 100 AD the culture had changed and there was a much wider acceptance of miracle claims.

It makes a difference that educated people, who could write, recorded the events, even though the norm was to ignore such claims. But in this case the claims were more credible.

When these reports had circulated, the belief in the possibility of miracle events greatly increased. And as a result, a new rash of miracle claims began to appear, about 100 AD and beyond. This is when the "age of superstition" really began, not earlier. It did not cause the gospel accounts or the Jesus miracle stories, but was caused by them.

There is no noticeable increase in miracle claims before 100 AD, other than the Jesus miracle claims, which were about a new person who had suddenly appeared and reportedly did such acts. This was different and fits no pattern of miracle claims or superstitions of that time. Such beliefs had been declining gradually over several centuries.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Will someone help Dr. Carrier find a "Quack" from the "age of superstition" -- he needs a helping hand.

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997). Richard Carrier

from Kooks & Quacks:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html
Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Aside from the fact that there's really no miracle act reported here, but only claims from charlatans, Josephus is really too late as an example to prove any "age of superstition" which caused the Jesus miracle stories to begin appearing in 55 AD (and probably earlier). Josephus himself fits into the new period when miracle claims were believed more, being right at the beginning of it. To prove there was an "age of superstition" ushering in the Jesus stories in the gospel accounts, you need something much earlier, like back in the 1st century BC.

So let's help out the Jesus-debunkers a little. Here's an alleged miracle-worker from about 130 BC, and the account is from Bibliotheca historica, by Diodorus Siculus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Siculus , writing between 30-60 BC. This is about Eunus, a slave in Sicily, who could shoot fire out from his mouth, and maybe some other tricks:

http://attalus.org/translate/diodorus34.html

5 There was a Syrian, born in the city of Apameia, who was a slave of Antigenes of Enna, and he was a magician and conjuror; he pretended to foretell future events, revealed to him (as he said) by the gods in his dreams, and deceived many by this kind of practice. Then he proceeded further, and not only foretold things to come, revealed to him in dreams, but pretended that he saw the gods when he was awake, and they declared to him what was to come to pass. 6 And though these were tricks that he played, yet by chance many of the things afterwards proved true. The predictions that were not fulfilled were ignored, but those which did come to pass were everywhere applauded, so that he grew more and more celebrated. By some artifice or other, he used to breath flames of fire out of his mouth as from a burning lamp, and so would prophesy as though he had been at that time inspired by Apollo. 7 For he put fire with some combustible matter to feed it, into a nut-shell or some such thing bored through on both sides; then putting it into his mouth and forcing his breath upon it, there would issue out both sparks and flames of fire. Before the revolt of the slaves this man boasted that the Syrian goddess had appeared to him, and told him that he should reign, and this he declared not only to others but often to his own master.

8 G As this became a common subject of laughter, Antigenes was so taken with the jest and the ridiculous conceit of the man, that he took Eunus (for such was his name) with him to feasts and dinners, and several questions being put to him concerning his future kingdom, he was asked how he would treat each person who was there present at the table. He readily went on with his story, and told them that he would be very kind to his masters and like a conjuror using many monstrous magical terms and expressions, he made all the guests laugh, upon which some of them as a reward gave him large helpings from the table, and asked him to remember their kindness when he came to be king. 9 But all this jesting at length really did end in his advancement to be king; and all those who at the feasts by way of ridicule had been kind to him, he rewarded in earnest. But the beginning of the revolt was in this manner.

10 G # There was one Damophilus of Enna, a man of great wealth, but of a proud and haughty disposition. This man above all measure was cruel and severe to his slaves; and his wife Megallis strove to exceed her husband in all kind of cruelty and inhumanity towards the slaves. The slaves, who had been so cruelly used, were enraged by this like wild beasts, and plotted together to rise in arms and cut the throats of their masters. To this end they consulted Eunus, and asked him whether the gods would give them success in their designs. He encouraged them and declared that they would prosper in their enterprise. He uttered conjuring words and expressions, as was his usual manner, and told them to be speedy in their execution. 11 Therefore, after they had raised a body of four hundred slaves, at the first opportunity they suddenly armed themselves and broke into the city of Enna, led by their captain Eunus, who used his juggling tricks to breathe fire out of his mouth. Then entering the houses, they made such a great slaughter, that they did not even spare even the suckling children, 12 but plucked them violently from their mother's breasts and dashed them against the ground. It cannot be expressed how vilely and filthily, for the satisfying of their lusts, they used men's wives in the very presence of their husbands. These villains were joined by a multitude of the slaves who were in the city. They first executed their rage and cruelty upon their own masters, and then fell to murdering others. . . .

Then they made Eunus king, not for his valour or skill in warfare, but on account of his extraordinary tricks, and because he was the leader and author of the defection; and his name seemed to portend and to be a good omen, that he would be kind {eunous} to his subjects. . . .

24 G This Eunus king of the robbers called himself Antiochus and all his followers Syrians. . . .

24b G The slaves conspired together to rise in revolt and kill their masters. They approached Eunus, who lived not far away, and asked him whether their plan had the approval of the gods. He began to speak in a strange and inspired manner, and when he heard the purpose of their visit, he made it clear that the gods would grant success to their revolt, if they made no delay and immediately put their plot into action; for fate had assigned Enna to them as their home, which was the citadel of the whole island. When they heard what he said, and perceived that the divinity was supporting them in their venture, their spirits were so aroused to revolt that they made no further delay in implementing their plans. . . .

So this is a case of a reputed miracle-worker from the time PRIOR to when the gospel accounts, and so can be characterized as part of an "age of superstition" which could have set the stage for the gospel accounts.

The important point to recognize, however, is that the author does not believe this Eunus really had any superhuman power, and he reports the character as a charlatan and hoaxter who misled people.

So there were naive people misled by charlatans, as in every age, and yet it's obvious from this source that most of the populace were not misled by this trickster, but considered him a joke. Even those who supported him apparently took him mostly as a trickster, but they sympathized with him anyway, being in support of his cause. Also they took him as an entertainer.

And yet it's clear that others took him seriously, and at least they believed he had power to divine the will of the gods. Perhaps it was mainly his charisma which persuaded them, and his magic tricks added to the impact, even if the folks didn't believe it literally.

This example is a better one to try to make Carrier's point, about the "age of superstition" which led to the Jesus miracle stories. 30-60 BC is clearly a period leading up to the 1st century AD which might be said to explain where the gospel accounts got their idea of Jesus the miracle-worker.

Now can someone find a miracle claim from this period for which the source takes the claim seriously, rather than scoffing at it, as in this case? If the only writer reporting it says the wonder-worker is a fraud, that's not much indication that it was an "age of superstition."

Here's a page which debunks everything in Carrier's Kooks & Quacks:
http://christianthinktank.com/mqfx.html

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus miracle claims did not originate during any "superstitious age" -- there was no "context" or "background" to explain the origin of these accounts.

continued from

No such "age of superstition" exists.

Against that huge pile of facts stands a collection of badly mangled versions of a story from an extremely superstitious age, an age which believed for instance that salamanders don't burn in fire despite Plinius reporting that he tried it and they do.

Here the term is "superstitious age" as a description of the period when the gospel accounts were written.

There was nothing about this "age" which can explain why there was this sudden outburst of miracle stories during 30-100 AD but nothing earlier, and then the explosion of new miracle stories after 100 AD. Or rather, there is no explanation that makes any sense except that in about 30 AD someone actually did perform those acts -- the starting point -- and word of this spread throughout the region, getting published in multiple accounts, unlike any other miracle cult, and inspiring the new rash of miracle stories, or copycat stories, into the 2nd century and beyond. That's what all the facts indicate.

Whereas your proposed ongoing "superstitious age" over many centuries would inspire repeated new superstitions and miracle claims appearing regularly, spread out through the period, rather than a sudden unpredictable outburst interrupting a long quiet period of inactivity such as the 1st century BC.

Even the Book of Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls and others in this pre-Christian period do not contain any new miracle events reportedly happening in history or new miracle heroes, but only heavenly visions and reinterpreting the ancient legends. . . .

So it doesn't make sense to characterize this period as a "superstitious age" that was likely to produce miracle claims anything like those of the gospel accounts. There's no sign of any such superstitious activity happening in this period.

Celebrated Jesus-debunker Richard Carrier is cited as an authority for the "superstitious age" claim, using the "World of the Gospels" as a fancy term for it:

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997). Richard Carrier

In which Carrier says,

We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context. Yet it is quite enlightening to examine them against the background of the time and place in which they were written, and my goal here is to help you do just that. There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority.

So he terms it "their context" and "the background of the time and place in which they were written" and "when the Gospels were written" etc.

This has to mean a period beginning no later than 50 AD, and to make any real sense, it has to be a period going back much farther, to the 1st century BC, or even back to 200 or 300 BC.

It is a fraud to identify the period "when the Gospels were written" or "context" of the gospels as a period which begins about 100 AD, or 80 or 90 AD.

Why is it that ALL the examples to show this as a "superstitious age" are ones which are very late 1st century AD or later than 100 AD? What sense does it make to call this the "context" of the gospel accounts, when there's NOT ONE example of a superstition offered which comes earlier than the gospel accounts? in fact, virtually none even contemporary to them, but only AFTER these writings?

Can we use a little logic here? How does the "context" for something turn out to be a period which happens AFTER the something it's a context for? Would someone please explain that?

Or are we now conceding, or acknowledging, that the period when the gospels were written, sometime after 30 AD, perhaps 70-100 AD, did NOT appear within the context of a "superstitious age"? and also the Paul epistles which mention the resurrection of Jesus, in about 55 AD?

So we now recognize that Barbarian and James Brown and their guru Richard Carrier mispoke above when they put the Jesus miracles and the gospel accounts in this "context" of a "superstitious age" which presumably explains the success of these reports and accounts which were believed by a gullible public which was ready to believe miracle claims at this time?

This clearly was a mischaracterization of the period when the Jesus stories emerged, or when the gospel accounts were written -- right? The "superstitious age" cliché turns out to be a falsehood, does it not?

The closest to anything from this period (when the gospels were written) is Barbarian's example of Pliny the Elder refuting the salamander superstition:

. . . an age which believed for instance that salamanders don't burn in fire despite Plinius reporting that he tried it and they do.

OK, this was about contemporaneous to when the gospels were written, though Mark was earlier, and the Jesus resurrection is first mentioned about 20-25 years earlier by Paul. But it's generally contemporary to when the gospels appeared.

But notice: Pliny DEBUNKS the superstitious claim. I.e., there is nothing here written by anyone affirming this superstition. But the gospels AFFIRM the Jesus miracle acts, saying these events really did happen, as Paul says the resurrection miracle did happen.

For real proof of a "superstitious age" don't you need a quote or 2 from someone affirming the superstitious belief? or stating that the miracle claim is true? Where's an example of that? THERE IS NONE! not from this time period of prior to 100 AD.

If all the writings of the period are only ones which DEBUNK the superstitious claims, how can you call that a "superstitious age"?

There are plenty of miracle claims or superstitious claims back before 500 BC and also after 100 AD. They are in writings where those claims are affirmed as true. BUT NOT FROM 500 BC to 100 AD (or 90 AD).

So the Barbarian-James Brown-Richard Carrier hypothesis is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the truth: The Age when the gospels were written was an age when superstitions and miracle claims were virtually ABSENT from the literature. You will be hard-put to find exceptions to this general rule.

Of course you can find a prophecy or omen here or there. And we have the worshipers at the statues and temples of the ancient pagan deities who are said to have answered the prayers for healing. In ALL these cases it is only to the ancient traditional pagan deity that any credibility is given by the believers. There's NEVER a case of some new "messiah" or hero or prophet showing up who can perform miracles. The closest is Elijah/Elisha (9th century) in I-II Kings (600 BC). You have to go back earlier than 500 BC to find real miracle stories.


With all his examples, Carrier proves this point that there was no "superstitious age" context for the Jesus stories and the gospel accounts, or rather DISproves his point that there was such a context:

Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom.

These were political revolutionaries, of which there was an oversupply. But these did not reportedly do miracle acts. No one took them for a "god" because they did anything supernatural. Where are the "god-men" or stories about miracle-workers?

The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), . . .

There's no claim that he did any such thing or that anyone believed he did. No one said he was a "god" or divine being who performed miracles, such as Jesus is described. There were earlier heroes like this one. How about Judas Maccabeus, e.g. Or how about Julius Caesar or General Pompey, who are praised for their heroism, courage, etc., but there are virtually no miracle acts reported. Nothing showing any pattern of miracles analogous to the Jesus acts.

. . . yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

They had a normal attraction to a normal charismatic militant crusader leading a gang of political dissidents, and who was abandoned when he lost. This has nothing to do with "superstition" or "miracles" or claims about supernatural power. The "age of superstition" has to show cases of miracle claims, e.g., of a hero who performed superhuman acts, which is not the case with these zealot leaders in the Josephus writings. There were many such charismatic figures or heroes, but no miracle claims.

Even Cyrus the Great was called "messiah" in Isaiah 45:1, being recognized as a hero by Jews. And likewise the Hasmonean leaders were recognized by many Jews as specially-appointed heroes. Just being a conqueror or militant crusader hero does not make one a miracle-worker. There were many such leaders from the time of the Jewish-Roman wars and going back for centuries. The oddball zealots mentioned by Josephus were just examples of these hero figures or would-be "messiah" types, representing anti-Roman dissidents, noteworthy as having some political influence, but not acclaimed for showing miracle power.

But also, Josephus wrote AFTER the gospel accounts were written, so cannot be part of a "context" in which the gospel accounts appeared.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97).

There's no suggestion anyone believed such a claim.

Though some of the reported events are from earlier in the century, the accounts of Josephus are later, like 90 AD. Why is Carrier unable to find any earlier writings to make his point? There were plenty of writings before 30 AD, yet none of them present any new miracle-workers popping up. Josephus offers 1 or 2 charismatics, but no miracle-worker.

This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, . . .

But no miracle acts by Simon are presented. The real miracle claims about this character don't appear until 150 AD and later.

. . . again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

He was unique in that he actually demonstrated "the power of god" in his acts, for which there is evidence, written attestation we do not have for any of these political dissident characters in Josephus or for Simon Magus. And he preceded all these, and the reports about him preceded all the reports about these. The facts plainly show that any increase of miracle claims during this period begin with the Jesus miracles, for which we have evidence, and before which there were no such events or claims of such events.

All the others came later, or are reported in later sources, after the Jesus resurrection and other miracle acts were being reported.

Miracles were also a dime a dozen in this era.

Only the era AFTER the Jesus miracle acts had been reported and were circulating. There were none before 50 AD, and virtually none before 100 AD, with the Book of Acts being the most obvious exception, about 90 AD, and this was obviously inspired by the earlier Jesus miracle claims.

The biographer Plutarch, a contemporary of Josephus, engages in a lengthy digression to prove that a statue of Tyche did not really speak in the early Republic (Life of Coriolanus 37.3). He claims it must have been a hallucination inspired by the deep religious faith of the onlookers, since there were, he says, too many reliable witnesses to dismiss the story as an invention (38.1-3).

But it's only Plutarch, after 100 AD, who says anything about this talking statue.

Again, it's interesting that only late sources like this exist for claims about miracle events during this "superstitious age" or this "context" in which the gospels and Jesus miracles appeared. Why is there nothing before 100 AD? Why is there nothing BEFORE the Jesus miracle stories and the appearance of the gospel accounts? Why does this "superstitious age" have to be only AFTER the gospel accounts appeared?

If this is all that is offered for this "context" or "superstitious age" which produced the Jesus miracles, then the whole theory blows up, because the thing that's caused by something else has to come AFTER that which caused it, not before.

He even digresses further to explain why other miracles such as weeping or bleeding--even moaning--statues could be explained as natural phenomena, showing a modest but refreshing degree of skeptical reasoning that would make the Amazing Randi proud. What is notable is not that Plutarch proves himself to have some good sense, but that he felt it was necessary to make such an argument at all.

But who was he arguing against? The believers in weeping and bleeding statues existed during his time, late 1st century and early 2nd century AD. I.e., miracle/superstitious claims like this were being made during his time, and he was criticizing these claims. But there's nothing to show any such claims were being made 100 years earlier, before the Jesus miracle stories appeared.

What this is evidence for is the increase in superstition and miracle claims from this period and later, not for a "superstitious age" which preceded the Christ miracle claims. Those appeared earlier than Plutarch's writing. I.e., the only evidence for this "age of superstition" or period of belief in miracles is precisely the Jesus miracle claims. These are the only examples you can find of any miracle claims during the 1st century. There are no others from this time, but only AFTER the gospel accounts appeared, from 100 AD and later, when a new unprecedented wave of miracle stories began in the literature.

This new "superstitious age" must have been CAUSED BY the Jesus miracle stories in the gospel accounts, which came first and caused all the examples of miracle claims which Carrier offers to prove that this "superstitious age" existed.

Clearly, such miracles were still reported and believed in his own time.

Carrier is misspeaking here. He's implying that such miracles were reported and believed BEFORE Plutarch wrote this, in an EARLIER time. Yet he has no example to offer as evidence for any such beliefs or reports. Why? Why only after 100 AD?

Plutarch is responding to something from his own time, not anything earlier. There is no evidence of any miracle claims (e.g., talking statues) prior to this period. Unless one goes way back to before 500 BC. From that time up to 100 AD we have no cases of any such miracle beliefs or reports. No one can give an example. Other than possibly some prophecy, or alleged portent, or miracle birth claim, and one has to search desperately even for these. Even the silly tale about Caesar Augustus silencing the frogs cannot be identified as to the original source for it to put it at an earlier date.

It isn't that there's NOT ONE single case of a superstitious claim of any kind. Of course you can turn up something -- a prophecy claim, or miracle birth -- but why are there hundreds of miracle claims AFTER this time which are so easy to identify, i.e., from 100 AD and later? and yet so few 50 or 100 years earlier, or back to 100 or 200 BC? Why virtually nothing from that earlier period?

I find this to be a particularly interesting passage, since we have thousands of believers flocking to weeping and bleeding statues even today. Certainly the pagan gods must also exist if they could make their statues weep and bleed as well!

But why is there no mention of any such weeping or bleeding statues earlier, before 50 AD? before there were any Christians? Why did these pagans have to wait until after Christianity was spreading before they could get their statues to weep and bleed? Why could they make their statues weep and bleed only from about 100 AD and later? but not before?

Carrier seems unaware that he is really DISproving his point that the gospels were written during a "superstitious age" -- he has not one example of a superstition miracle from that period, but only quotes from writers after 100 AD. And he offers NO case of a writer affirming that a miracle happened. All his quotes are from debunkers only. He can't come up with one document containing a miracle claim and affirming that the claim is true.

Before 500 BC there were many such documents, and after 100 AD also. But during the age when the gospels were written, there is virtually NONE. Even though there was a great increase in religious literature leading up to the events of 30 AD, especially Jewish writings, in which there are ZERO miracle superstition claims.

The truth is that the Jesus miracle stories are a shocking disruption of this period of non-superstition and non-miracle claims.

 

[none]

Whelp, there you go... apparently we are still in the "superstitious age"

 

[lpetrich]

That is a miserable failure of an argument. This reporting indicates that some people believed that these miracles had happened.

Of course there was some belief. But it makes a big difference that writers began claiming the events really happened, rather than scoffing at the claims as they had always done earlier.

Which writers?

Introduction: Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? -- Richard Carrier describes how the writers of the New Testament did not show any evidence of critically evaluating their sources. That was something that some of their Greco-Roman historian contemporaries had done.

After the Jesus miracle stories had become widely circulated, in both oral and written accounts. These accounts caused an increase in such belief in miracle events. The change in thinking began at least as early as the Paul epistles, in 55 AD, but probably earlier. It was a gradual process, so that by 100 AD the culture had changed and there was a much wider acceptance of miracle claims.

That is an incredibly silly claim. In the early centuries of Xianity, it was not very well-known. One sees offhand references to it here and there, but not much in any detail.

from Kooks & Quacks:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html
Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" ...

Aside from the fact that there's really no miracle act reported here, but only claims from charlatans, ...

How does one tell the difference?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When I was 8 years old I thought all miracles were real, Santa's flying reindeer, Tooth Fairy, Jesus coming back to life. I also thought the Harlem Globetrotters were a real basketball team.

At 18 the only remaining belief, though questioned, was that maybe Jesus didn't do any miracles, owing to things like Jesus Christ Superstar, and Imagine.

At 28 Jefferson's Jesus seemed more real than Catholic Jesus, but I still hadn't met anyone who didn't think any of these impossible events had possibly not occurred. And of course by this time I had outlived my average Mediterranean ancestors of 2000 years earlier by considerable years.

At 38 I had begun meeting people who scoffed at the idea of miracles and were questioning the existence of historical figures. I had also become familiar with many different sects of Christianity as I moved my family around the country, and listened to their tales about how these other believers had it all wrong. Very interesting stuff.

Today Jesus is as real as Paul Bunyan, Peter Pan and Vishnu.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There is no "CONTEXT" or "AGE OF SUPERSTITION" which can explain the sudden appearance of the Jesus miracle stories.

So Livy isn't saying these [miracle] events happened, but only that they were reported, and clearly he says in the Book 21 text that these were "too easily credited."

So you've found a source saying such claims were made, but not anyone saying such things actually happened.

That is a miserable failure of an argument. This reporting indicates that some people believed that these miracles had happened.

Of course there was some belief. But it makes a big difference that writers began claiming the events really happened, rather than scoffing at the claims as they had always done earlier.

Which writers?

Paul saying the resurrection of Jesus happened. And the 4 Gospel writers saying he did the miracle acts. Otherwise we have no examples of any writers saying miracle acts really happened.

Earlier writers like Livy said only that there were some who believed some weird claims. Homer mentions miracles of Apollo etc., but not any recent miracle acts done by a recent guru or prophet etc. (But also, Homer is too early to put in the "context" or "age of superstition" leading to the Jesus miracle stories.)

The only writer who reports a miracle event happening is the writer of I - II Kings, relating the prophets Elijah and Elisha performing miracles. But that's a 600 BC source, referring back to events from 900 BC. Is it necessary to go back that far to establish the supposed "context" or "age of superstition" which produced the Jesus miracle stories of many centuries later? Why didn't this "context" produce any miracle stories during the period after 500 BC to 50 AD?

If you're desperate, you can strrrrrrrrretch it and claim 2 or 3 miracle events reported in Herodotus, but these are pathetic examples. And that's back to the 5th century BC, so not really part of the "context" for the Jesus miracle stories. Why is it so difficult to find JUST ONE miracle act reported in any literature after 400, or even 500-600 BC, and forward to the 1st century AD, to establish this "context" for the later Jesus miracle stories? There is virtually nothing there. What kind of "context" is that? an empty space of about 600 years having nothing in it showing any similarity to the Jesus miracle acts?

It's laughable that Dr. Carrier thinks he finds parallel miracle stories in Herodotus. That he sinks this low to find an example only proves the point that there IS NO PARALLEL in the literature to the Jesus miracle stories. These stand alone, separate from ANY "context" or "Age of Superstition" of that period with examples of reported miracle acts in the literature.

The praying at statues, reported in inscriptions, is the closest one can find to any miracle claims, and these were DEcreasing as we approach the time when the Jesus miracle stories appear in the 1st century AD. Such praying at statues/temples and claims of healing from ancient gods are common to ALL historical periods, including today. These healing cults, mostly Asclepius cults, were dying by the early 1st century AD, but then (by coincidence?) they experienced a revival, beginning about 100 AD.

So the writers I'm referring to are ALL of them from about 600 BC through to about 100 AD. Outside the New Testament, there are virtually NO claimed miracle acts in any of the writings during this period, from Jewish or Greek or Roman sources, other than possibly some reference to ancient gods like Zeus/Apollo etc., or ancient pagan heroes like Hercules. Ovid relates some ancient pagan hero miracles. But nothing about any new miracle heroes appearing. No god-men, no new prophets or messiahs or saviors etc. who anyone claims did miracles. Only AFTER Jesus, after 100 AD, do we see these, and then they appear in large numbers.

And yet, in contrast to all this ABSENCE of miracle claims, we have the Jesus miracle acts appearing abruptly in the writings. And then after this the new barrage of such stories appears in the literature, after 100 AD, from many writers, both Christian and non-Christian.

Introduction: Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? -- Richard Carrier describes how the writers of the New Testament did not show any evidence of critically evaluating their sources.

Virtually NO writers showed any such evidence of critical thinking.

Those who critically evaluated their sources were a very tiny minority of writers. There is nothing about the sources for the gospel accounts that makes them any less credible than other writings of the period. ALL the writings and sources can be questioned and found to fall short of today's general standards for critical scrutiny and accuracy. ALL of them have to be judged with equal criticism and skepticism.

That was something that some of their Greco-Roman historian contemporaries had done.

You might claim this about some of the historians, but even so, they were not critical by our modern standards for accuracy.

But further, the gospel writers were not pretending to be historians, who are a special category of writers, and this category excludes many writers who are still reliable for history. The poets and rhetoricians and philosophers etc. are not to be excluded as sources for history, even if they are given less priority than the official historians. There is no reason to exclude them as unreliable.

E.g., we can rely on Cicero for history, trusting his accounts for accuracy in general, even though we know he was biased and more likely to exaggerate. We can use common sense to judge the trustworthiness of particular points, applying normal skepticism, and granting credibility to the general picture presented.

For the gospel accounts, there is no reason to reject the reported miracle events, except for the general doctrine that all miracle claims must be false.

There's reason to doubt some odd claims which are unique to only one source, like the Star of Bethlehem reported only in Matthew. We can set these aside and focus only on the particular events or narratives which are common to all the accounts. Where the gospels, and also the Paul epistles, agree or are in harmony on the general picture, there is no reason to reject them as sources, i.e., imposing onto them a critical standard we don't impose onto other sources.

Again, it's only the presence of the miracle stories which causes any doubt about the credibility. Only the doctrine that there can be no miracle events gives any reason to reject these accounts. One who does not adopt that doctrine and leaves open the possibility of such events is not bound by reason or science to reject these accounts. It's only this dogmatic premise -- that there can never be any miracle events -- which requires the gospel accounts to be excluded as sources for the history.

Some of the historians also demonstrated lack of critical judgment at times. E.g., Josephus naively reports on an exorcist who he claims expelled demons in the name of Solomon, impressing spectators by having the demons knock over a container of water as they exited from the victim's body. (Antiquities, Bk 8, 2:5). This hocus-pocus in Josephus does not undermine his credibility generally in reporting the historical facts.

After the Jesus miracle stories had become widely circulated, in both oral and written accounts. These accounts caused an increase in such belief in miracle events. The change in thinking began at least as early as the Paul epistles, in 55 AD, but probably earlier. It was a gradual process, so that by 100 AD the culture had changed and there was a much wider acceptance of miracle claims.

That is an incredibly silly claim. In the early centuries of Xianity, it was not very well-known.

We don't know how widely the Jesus miracle stories had circulated orally, or in written accounts which have not survived. 99% of writings did not survive to later generations, because they were not copied, but they circulated at the time and later perished.

We do know that the Jesus resurrection story was surely circulating by 55 AD at the latest.

Also that before the Jesus miracle stories there are NO OTHER miracle stories appearing in the literature, about any new miracle workers. All that existed were accounts of worshipers who prayed at pagan statues or temples and reported favorable results, as had been happening for centuries. But there were no stories of any new miracle-workers of any kind, from before 50 or 100 AD. And yet, at that point there suddenly appears a vast onslaught of new miracle stories and new miracle heroes, AFTER the Jesus miracle stories appearing from 30-100 AD.

What caused the sudden and abrupt change beginning about 100 AD, such that new miracle heroes pop up, and also new stories of Jesus miracles? Miracle stories and superstitions had long been DEcreasing, including the accounts of the miracle healings at the pagan statues. And yet, all this suddenly revives at this time, about 100 AD and afterward.

Why did the Asclepius cult REVIVE at this point, along with the general increase of miracle claims and superstitions?

The best explanation is that this was a reaction to the sudden appearance of the Jesus miracle stories somewhere between 30-100 AD. What better explanation is there than this for the abrupt change which took place? What else explains why Dr. Carrier can come up with NO examples of miracle stories during this period, in the literature, except those AFTER 100 AD? even though he desperately wants to find an example? BEFORE this point there is ZERO evidence to prove the claim that this was an "Age of Superstition," whereas after this point we have a flood of examples to show it. Why? What caused the change?

If you have no other explanation, you cannot reject as "silly" the explanation that the new flood of miracle stories at this time was inspired by the Jesus miracle reports which had circulated widely enough to inspire some new similar stories, or copy-cat stories. We obviously see these in the Book of Acts, and there's every reason to assume other writers, even non-Christian writers, would have been similarly influenced

One sees offhand references to it here and there, but not much in any detail.

In the extant literature, outside the New Testament, we have only the 2 Josephus quotes and the Tacitus and Suetonius quotes. And there's Pliny's famous quote about the Christians at about 110 AD. But we don't know how much the oral accounts were circulating, nor how much written matter existed but later perished. The circulation of the gospel accounts and Paul epistles, though limited to Christian readers, indicates a considerable amount of oral accounts in circulation, plus further written accounts which were never copied and so are lost.

Something caused the new miracle claims to start appearing, from 100 AD and after. The best explanation is the earlier Jesus miracle claims which were circulating orally and in written accounts which later perished.

from Kooks & Quacks:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html
Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" ...

Aside from the fact that there's really no miracle act reported here, but only claims from charlatans, ...

How does one tell the difference?

You know the difference. I.e.:

• claims coming only from the alleged miracle-worker himself (charlatan) claiming to have power, vs.
• claims being made by many others who attest to the deeds of the alleged miracle-worker.

Doesn't the latter have more credibility? reported in multiple accounts? The difference is obvious.

 

[lpetrich]

 Honi ha-M'agel -- Honi the Circle-Drawer

During the 1st century BC, a variety of religious movements and splinter groups developed amongst the Jews in Judea. A number of individuals claimed to be miracle workers in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha, the ancient Jewish prophets. The Talmud provides some examples of such Jewish miracle workers, one of whom is Honi ha-Ma'agel, who was famous for his ability to successfully pray for rain.

It is reported that, on one occasion, when God did not send rain well into the winter (in the geographic regions of Israel, it rains mainly in the winter), Honi drew a circle in the dust, stood inside it, and informed God that he would not move until it rained. When it began to drizzle, Honi told God that he was not satisfied and expected more rain; it then began to pour. He explained that he wanted a calm rain, at which point the rain calmed to a normal rain.

We are not sure when he lived, but it was some decades before Jesus Christ lived.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Honi the Circle-Drawer sources are POST-Jesus. Not a "context" to explain how the Jesus miracle stories appeared out of nowhere.

 Honi ha-M'agel -- Honi the Circle-Drawer

During the 1st century BC, a variety of religious movements and splinter groups developed amongst the Jews in Judea. A number of individuals claimed to be miracle workers in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha, the ancient Jewish prophets. The Talmud provides some examples of such Jewish miracle workers, one of whom is Honi ha-Ma'agel, who was famous for his ability to successfully pray for rain.

It is reported that, on one occasion, when God did not send rain well into the winter (in the geographic regions of Israel, it rains mainly in the winter), Honi drew a circle in the dust, stood inside it, and informed God that he would not move until it rained. When it began to drizzle, Honi told God that he was not satisfied and expected more rain; it then began to pour. He explained that he wanted a calm rain, at which point the rain calmed to a normal rain.

We are not sure when he lived, but it was some decades before Jesus Christ lived.

Yes, but there is no source for this character until Josephus in about 90 AD. There is nothing in the literature about any miracle acts until after the Jesus miracle stories were already circulating.

Your source for Honi, the Mishna, is after 200 AD.

Also your quote

During the 1st century BC, a variety of religious movements and splinter groups developed amongst the Jews in Judea. A number of individuals claimed to be miracle workers in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha, . . .

is based entirely on that very late source, nothing from before 200 AD or even close to the period when the Jesus miracle stories appeared.

Why are there no miracle stories in any literature from an earlier period than this? Why do all of them have to appear ONLY AFTER the Jesus miracle stories were circulating?

But also, this kind of "miracle" is pretty anemic. Here's the Josephus account on Honi (Onias):

Now there was one named Onias, a righteous man and beloved of God, who, in a certain drought, had once prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat, and God had heard his prayer and sent rain.
http://josephus.org/HoniTheCircleDrawer.htm

So this is the best you can come up with? Your failure to find any good examples proves the point that the period when Jesus appeared was NOT any special "age of superstition" or any "context" which would produce new miracle-workers or new miracle stories.

Obviously there are many prayers which sometimes seem to be answered, like prayers for good weather or to recover from a headache, etc. Certainly there were claims by various people that God answered their prayers, in 100 BC, 200 BC, 300 AD, 900 AD, 2000 BC, etc. etc.

So yes, this might be called a "miracle" story of sorts. People of all time periods have prayed and had their prayers "answered" one way or another, and there is nothing here which is unique to the 1st century BC. This doesn't indicate any special "age of superstition" leading up to the Jesus miracle stories. If we had an onslaught of such stories appearing in 30 AD or in 30 BC, it would help prove your point. But all we have is one Honi reference in 90 AD, and then a series of stories after 200 AD.

Also, this is another case illustrating the UNcritical mindset of the mainline historians (like Josephus), the Talmud rabbis, and other writers, disproving the claim that only the New Testament writers were uncritical about sources and about checking for accuracy and being skeptical.

But we can trust Josephus generally. As well as Paul and the gospel writers.